xml-dev - Re: Parser Behaviour (serious)

[Bob Kline <bkline@rksystems.com>]

On Thu, 6 Apr 2000, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:

> Some posters have suggested that we are attempting to develop a
> "standard".  I don't think so - it may simply be that a common,
> agreed way of treating documents is all that is required.

I'm having a little difficulty appreciating the distinction you're
trying to make here.  You stated in your original posting for this
thread that "XML 1.0 is broken as an interoperable standard" because it
failed its task of "specifying parser behaviour," and issued an eloquent
call to arms to correct this deficiency.  Assume that this activity
succeeds in formulating a statement which specifies expected behaviors
sufficiently clearly and unambiguously that (for example) we can
evaluate the array of available packages to determine the conformance
levels of those packages.  Assume further that this specification is
widely adopted ("common, agreed way ..." to use your phrase).  Whether
or not you're able to convince the framers of the original broken
standard to incorporate this specification of conformant behavior in
future versions of the W3C recommendations, what is there to gain by
avoiding the word "standard" for such a specification?  If on the other
hand this effort fails to produce such a clear specification of
conformant behavior, or the specification is not widely adopted, what
will have been accomplished?

Cheers,
Bob


***************************************************************************
This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers.
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@xml.org&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
***************************************************************************